tv Charlie Rose PBS July 15, 2011 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
alister campbell, former press spokesman for former prime minister tony blair. john burns of t "new york times," and roger cohen of t "new york times" plu the editor of bloomberg business week >> we've worked non-stop on this story for two and a half years and we've concentrated our guns on the news of the world because that's where the evidence was. so i think once the judicial inquiry startsopening they're going to want ee everybody
and ask very tough questions and in a sma world where people chge from one newspaper to another all the time it's likely that somof these techniques transfer from newsroom to newsroom. >> rose: we conclude with paul farmer of the harvard medical scol. he has a newook called "haiti after the earthquake." >> i hope that this book helps contribute to a discussion about humanitarian relief, disaster response and development assistance. and i hope that people also learn something from the one experience in coordinating, somewhat aggressively, many say, humanitarian relief they've insisted if you want to work there, you have to be a part of their national plan. it's probably a wise thing they did. >> rose: rupert murdoch and london and paul farmer on haiti when we continue.
every story needs a hero we can all root for. who beats the odds and comes out on top. but this isn't just a hollywood storyline. it's happening every day, all across america. every time a storefront opens. or the midnight oil is bned. or when someone chases a dream, not just a dollar. they are small business owners. so if you wanna root for a real hero, suppt small business. shop small. captiong snsored by rose communicaons from our studiosn new york
city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with the story of rupert mdoch and his media empire, which is under siege in london. the controversy arises from an ongoing phone hacking scandal and inappropriate relgtszships with the police. murdoch flew to london last weekend to take command of the defense of his company newscorp. on sunday he shut down the newspaper involved in the scandal. the 168-year-old tabloid "news of the world." yeerday he whdrehis bid for the remaining shares of b sky b worth more than $12 million after mounting presre from the british government and the public. prime minister david cameron and labour leader ed mill band clashed over the scandal. >> before the whole house we want to pay tribute t their courage and bravery. does the prime minister now agree me that it is an insult to the family that rebekah brooks, the editor of "news of the
world" at the time, is still at her post in news international? >> i've made very clear she was right to resign. that resignation should have beenccepted. there needs to be root and branch change at this entire organization. >> mr. speaker, i thank the prime minister for that answer and he's right to take the position that rebekah brook should go. and i hope you will come to the debate that rupert murdoch should drop his bid for b sky b, should rise the world has changed and should listen to this house of commons. >> i agree with what the right old gentleman has said and i think it's good that the house of commons is going to speak with one voice. >> this evidence casts serious doubt on mr. coleson's ashurntss that the phone hacking over which he resigned was an isolated example of illegal activities. the prime minister says the chief of staff is not passed on this very serious information. can he now tell us what information he proposes t take against the chief of staff?
>> i have given, i think, the fullest possible answer i could to the right honed gentleman. and let me just say this. he can stand there and ask questions about andy. i can stand here and ask questions about tom baldwin. (cheers and applause) you know what, m speer? i think the public and the victims of the appalling scandal want us toise above this. >> >> mr. speaker, he just doesn't get it! (cheers and applause) he just doesn't get it. and most of all he should apologize for the catastrophic error of judgment he made in hiring andy coleson. rupert murdoch, his son james and news international chief executive rebekah brooks have been summoned to appear before a parliamentary committee next tuesday. questions have begun to arise about the impact this scandal
will have on the future of murdoch's global media empire and what it pact it will have on british politics and the future of prime minister david cameron. his press spokesman andrew coleson, former editor of "news of the world" has resigned and has been arrested. joining me from london, alan rusbridger, the editor of "the guardian," catherine mayor, "time" magazine london bureau chief. the cover story on "time" is hers and alister campbell, former communications director to prime minister tony blair. joining me frocambridge, john burns, the "new york times" london bureau chief. here with me in new york is roger cohen of "new york times" and josh tie ren tie ren jell of blooplberg business week. where is the story as we speak? >> everyday brings another startling turn in this story. todas big turn was the dpe
sigs by rupert and james murdoch james being his son and head of his british operations, to do 180-degree turn raer late in the day and having told the parliamentary committee that's going to hold a hearing on tuesday that they would not attend james murdoch saying ther loosely "i can't make it that day, i'll make it some other day. they then... summons were issued by the parliamentary committee which had fairly serious implications and they changed their minds. so we now know that come tuesday we will have the three principal executives that are in the frame on all of which, which is rurplt himself, his son, and rebek brooks who is the chief executive as you know of the murdoch subsidiary here in london being called to testify before parliament.
catherine, where do you think the next term is in this story? >> well, john said it'saken a different turner. it's taking so many differen turns everyday that that's a really difficult questio i think that it is likely for the moment to stay focused on news international because the pressure on roourplt, on the organization is fascinating to people. there's also, i think, a kind of separate story that's going to begi unveling about relations with the police and there's going to be turbulence there. but i would expect that further down the line we will also start... see this to start to spread to other news organizations. >> rose: you anticipate mid-next question. alan, speak that, whether other news organizatio have do some of the same things. >> well, i think it's probably highly likely. i mean, we've worked non-stop on
this story for the last two and a half years and we've concentrated our guns on "news of the world" because that's where the evidence was. so i think once the judicial inquiry starts opening, they're going to want to see everybody and they're going ask very tough questions anin a small world like fet street where people change from one newspaper to another all the time, i think it's probably... it's likely that some of these techniques transferred from newsroom to newsroom. >> rose: including "the guardian"? >> i don't think so. when reporters have come from other newspapers to to say "can i use private detectives?" i've always said no and we've had very strict rules. i mean there are case where reporters sh things to the limits in cases ere there are very high eas of public interest. i guess that happens on all papers. but anyway, we will know the truth when this public inquiry gets going. >> rose: what is it you expect
to s to be found? i mean... >> well, this story was a lonely story to report because nobody wanted to upset the murdoch operations. so the police's behavior has been bafrling throughout throughout and i think they've got very uncomfortable questions because they have had two inquiries, if not three, before they finally started taking this seriously. politicians are now coming out and openly saying "we felt intimidated by murdoch from asking all good questions." the press regulator has withdrawn the report they published in november, 2009. so i think you've got a pattern which feels like a sort of capture of the civic organizations in society or intimidation. so i think this is going to go very widely, indeed. >> rose: alister? >> i think i agree with a lot of what alan said. i mean, the murdoch empire has worked in a way that is cowed
parts of the press, cowed many of its competitors. and i think it actually, as i said in the "financial times" early this week that the have been times when we were too close to them as well. d the other thing i will say abt the paper's campaign, he's right that it was lonely for them. i actually did kind of bu my bridge with murdoch right aroundhe time "the guardian" revealed the full extent of this. and it's, frankly, been extraordinary not just to watch the way the police have handled it but the way until now that most other media organizations have handled this as well. that is story they've been willing to go away. and i think that's bause actually to go back to your earlier question, when the inquiry gets under way, we're almost going to certainly see newspapers groups like the "mail" and t mirror and the stuff i know about me, i've been shown evidence of being in the hacking situation. but the big money that was pd out in relation to me by private
detectives was my old paper the "mirror." so i think this is going to go far and wide. the police... as catherine said... it was alan's story. the situation that is utterly baffling, the senior police officer who faced the... one of the parliamentary committees the other day didn't handle himself atll well. they still have questions to answer journalists... i think good journalists have got nothing to fear from what's coming down the track but bad journalists and those who have indulged in criminal activity i thinker in a lot of trouble. >> rose: roger, when you look at this, you wrote a piece and you've said you were a contrarian and you wanted to speak to the question of rupert murdoch. yea well, seeing everybody piling in charlie, and this murdoch bashing everywhere and a very strong reek of hypocrisy, i thought, with all these politicians who'd been fawning to murdoch. i guess the contrarian in me just wanted to say, well, hang on a second. i mean, clearly the hacking is
inexcusable and illegal. and the extent of it is a reflection of our celebrity and reality show obsessed culture. but without murdoch i think the newspaper business in britain would be... would have been utterly beleaguered. it was he back in '86 that allowed newspaper innovation to come in. he took the "times" tabloid, everybody said he was crazy. this is a guy, for better or worse, who loves newspapers. and the "times" of london has been building up its foreign bureaus at a time. i mean, the "washington post" here is down to a handful. "chicago tribune" has known. he's been building up the foreign bureaus. he's had the courage to put up a pay wall and say "you've got to pay for what journalists do online." i wanted to point out that... ande's had tremendous courage in the very bold investments he's made. i spent a long time with h 20 years ago when he was just embarking on sky b and fox here in the u.s. i don't like fox,ut to break
theriopoly of the networks was an extraordinarily business achievement. now, fox's contribution to the situatioin the u.s. today is very damaging, i thin but as a bhed media executive, he has been the visionary, along with turner, i would say, of the last 20 to 30 years. >> rose: certainly in a global way. >> yeah. >> rose: here is your cover, "murdoch's rotten tabloids kill the b sky b putting in the pearl. will this spad to the united states? >> i don't know. it's one ofthose thing what is i see... we're all talking about murdoch and we should remember that even though he's the driving force of the company, this is a company bunry m.b.a.s, accountants, lawyers. so we're not just looking at a personal issue, we're looking at an abysmal failure of management. and so if you're going the ask the questions about w it spreads you have to look at each division and say is this division managed the same way as this one? it's an enormous company. what we know so far is an
allegation. there are two senators asking the questions about should there will be oversight? should we do this investigation because there are practices over here. we also know it's an american company. people forget pert murdoch is an american citizen, james murdh is an american citizen. newscorp is incorporated in delaware. there's a reason the federal government could have oversight, could have interest. but i don't want to... >> rose: andenator rockefeller has spoken to tha >> rockefeller has spoken to it. but i don'want to speculate because it's moving soast i could be wrong by the time i finish the sentence. >> rose: but how about thedea of hacking and the idea of this kind of relationship with police? >> we're lking about it as bad journalism. i think that's wrong. it's not journalism at all. it's investigation. it goes well beyond the line of what journalism has ever been about. now the competitive atmosphere in the london papers which i think murdoch has stoked for the ultimate good of london, for the ultimate good of the united kingdom, that has encouraged people go well and beyond ethical bar bus it's not journalism. for the sake of definition, it's
something completely other. i don't see that going on in the united states. we have a different journalistic culture. >> rose: is there something about britain's political culture and brain's newspaper culture that gave wind to the sails of this? alan? >> it is a highly competitive culture. there are something like ten national newspapers in the u.k. and it's a pretty small country so it's a pretty competitive culture and we all know that newspapers are in not great financial shape at the moment. so you canmagine the pressure that we're on in the nsroom. i think what happened washat this began with celebries and it was felt to be fair game with celebrities. newspapers felt they built them up and they felt they had the right to knock them down. but within the same newsom, that culturehen transferred to politics because they had the same skills and then as we've seen, tragically, it applied to victims of murders and accidents and deaths. and i think it just became systemized within some
newsrooms. we know particularly about "news of the world" and it became the standard method of rorting. i mean, when you hear police chiefs saying they have 4,000, it could be 9,000 if you included the land line numbers. you think this was just the first thing they did when they had a story. as i said, i think it began with celebrities and then just became the way that newsrooms work. >> well, i think it's... i think i was right. i think it's also more complicated than that. i think that newspapers have always had a very, very important part in british culture and british history and i think that the newspapers have found it quite difficult to adapt to the big innovations of 24-hour news and even more significantly i think the online revolution. and for bad or for good, mos of them have decided that the root they have to... the route they have to go down is celebrityization which i think has been a disaster for the country and long term i think for the newspapers and also down
a route where the only thing that counts is making a really big impact. the big stories. when i was a journalist starting out 30 years ago, part of your job was to stop people seeing your front pages until it was on thenewsstand. now the front page is you're trng to finish it at 8:00 in the evening so you can get it on to the t.v. screens. that's the way you're marketing yourself. it's a complete changehich i find it very, very hard to adapt to. in that pursuit of big-impact journalism, some newspapers really have reached a point where anything will go. absolutely anything. and the one term i thi this guy, paul mcmullen who goes on the television the will say, look, we all did it, none of us thought it was wrong and the people that taught me did it as well. they have to make an impact and they'll stop at nothing to do it. >> rose: this is the guy that talked to hugh grant when hugh grant was secretly recording him. >> that's right. >> rose: catherine, what is the
damage t newscorp and what is the damage to rupert murdoch? >> well, again... i mean, as just said, you could be wrong by the end of the sentence on this one. i mean, i am worried... i share some of what roger said about what murdoch has actually contributed. but there's also the question of the print journals, what hapns to them now. there are rumors that he may actually divest of the remaining british papers and and this is not just a competitive market, it's a market where a lot of the papers aretruggling. so i'm not really answering your questions what happens to murdoch, i'm answering one of the things that troubles me about this story is is what's going to happen to papers like the "times" and "the sunday times" at this point. i think it is also answering what happens to murdoch in this country. i think they have played it so badly that he has gone from
having too much influence to becoming a pariah. it's unbelievable that they made those sorts of mistakes as they did with the culture committee, the kind of thinkin that they could still say no to it and then having to do a u-turn in one day. they really are struggling. they are out of their depths. and so i cannot imagine that that will not be felt through the corporate structure because even though, younow, this not a family company, it is run like one. and it seems that the head of the family has lost his touch. >> re: john burns? what happens to... do you think rupert murdoch is now considered in some circles in london a pariah? >> no doub i have no doubt that that'sthe case. one reads the name "william randolph hearst" often engh,
"citizen kane" in the u.k. press when looking at the figure of murdoch who's 80 years old. he looks ever more frail as goodness knows you might expect would under this kind of battering and if we ask ourselves how much credibility rupert murdoch would have were he to try in the united states to make another major acquisition-- not that they're proposing to do that-- but i think you could quickly conclude that that's likely to be extremely difficult for him in the light of all of these circumstances. and i believe he belongs to a culture manifestly which says you've got to grow or die. and it's very hard to see now how this organization can continue to grow and much more easy to see how it could rapidly begin to recede. >> rose: your cover says "put putting newscorp future in peril." peril. >> i just want to touch on what
john said. he said charles foster keane. rupert murdoch was ten years old when "citizen kane" came out. for his entire professional life al of us who have followed from the frailtys to the successess have this template in our head. in life d picture cracter may be fate, in business is management and rupert murdoch, as important as he is, is not the only thing at newscorp. so when we say "peril," what we means that there are big questions about the management of if tompany, big questis about where it's going to go for both. the b sky b acquision was about growth. newspapers make up 3 3-% of the profits. it's a pimple. it means nothing. >> it's said the only reason the print maintains its place in the portfolio is because rupert loved newspapers. >> absolutely. so the question about what happens to it, we have to be very careful about divorcing our own projections of pert murdoch, this grea character, no question, from newscorp, which is a multinational company
with lots of business interests that will find a way. i mean, i think it will find a way. it's certainly put itself at risk in a way that it didn't have to. we've talked about the silliness, the poor decisions, the lack of transparency that could have felt it. but be careful about the difference between rupert murdoch and newscorp. >> rose: what happens to newscorp, wh happens to rupert murdoch and in fact he's the man ere on the scene she can feel and know the center of the... the hot cente of this controversy. >> well, the question is over james murdoch's judgment. i mean, he was intended as the suessor to take control of the whole company and he's now come out and admitted that backn july 2009, when we published this story about him writing checks to... well essentially silence money checks instead of going back to the police and parliament admitting thathey had misd people. d that was a terrible error of
judgment. it was a coverup, it wasrying to buy hush money in order to coeal criminality within his own company. and that was a terrible error of judgment and i'm afraid that for the last two years, until very recently, there's been a persistent coverup within the company. the police are now coming out and saying this is a major company that was doing its best to frustrate a criminal inquiry. they admit they've lied to parliament and they've misled the regulator. so that's all on james murdoch's watch. and the fact that he's still there and that he's still got rebekah ooks as chief executive, these the people who had to close down. we all agree that rupert murdoch is a great lover of newspapers but don't forget he closed a newspaper last week, a highly profitable paper, in order to walk. in order to save the skins of the people who were in control. and what kind of governance was the newscorp board itself in america applying? and none of this has been a secret. it's all been in the pages of he guardian" and elsewhere.
so what questions were they asking about james murdoch and his governance of this company? >> rose: charlie, i think the answer t this question is that everybody in this we're just willing it away. murdoch was willing it away, the police were willing it away, the other newspapers were willing it away, the politicians were willing it away. and actually, newscorp dirtors were probably willing it away. and because the newspapers in a sense can influence the terms of debate so much, actually i think people thought it uld go away. we've got a situation now, for example, where the prime minister-- chose judgment is profoundly in question-- sort of saying, well, nobody really told me. somebody told me today that... this is just me, i've written 37 different pieces about cameron and coleson being a disaster waiting to happen. but they just look the other way. and i think news looked the other way the whole time. they didn't think this was going to happen. and if they'd actually been strategic about it, they'd have
realize this was inevitable once they decided to go down the route that alan has just described where basically they were going to cover up the truth rather than put the truth to police and parliament. >> this speaks also to the role that tabloids pyed in britain, which is so different to in other countries. that they became proxies for the voters as well as being central to the debate as well asetting the terms of the debate. it was kind of in the same way that hacking became the lazy, easy way of getting a story. theabloids became the lazy, easy, waf speaking to people. and i think that cameron saw in coleson somebody w cou do for him whatlister did for tony. and that in cameron's case, of course, also he's posh and, you know, coleson was a man of... is a man of the people and of the tabloids. >> yeah, that was a huge error of cameron's to hire coleson against, actually, specific
advice from alan rusbridger at "the guardian" and i think from his deputy, too. and it's a little bit what we've seen at newscorp, a series of errors that really smack of hubris. the amount of time and money that news corporation and news international put into the b sky b deal, setting it up over the past year and it was ready to go i mean, that is just wasted effort, wasted money. murdoch suggesting he might go back to the deal at some future date. i don't see how that's going to happen. and i think newscorp is at a kind of turning pointecause the great strength of the company has been, in a way, ts personal management style that enabled it to take great risks. we've w seen the down side of that. so how will they balance that risk-taking with greater controls? >> roger, i want to... >> rose: gohead. >> ...pick up if i may on roger's use of the word"hubris" in respect of camen. i ink that ther are many shakespearean elements to this whole story whether the fatal
flawevident in each of the chacters who was now in freefall have proven to be jus that, to undo them. and cameron, if he didt believe it himself, he was told by the tabloid press insis tently after he took the leadership of the conservative party that he was out of touch, he went to eton and oxford. he may or may not have believed that initially, but he certainly came to believe it and he thought that coleson was the answer to that. coleson was going to be his alister campbell. he was the person who understood the world that was closed to david cameron in the years that he was growing up. and i think that's the only possible explanation as to why he would have gone careering through these re light whi is i know for certain, for sure, were being flashed at him at the me of the general election last year. and why he did tha, he thought
that he needed that sensibility, if you will, the common-man sensibility, to win the election. he felt that to win the next election, to sustain thi coalition,e needed it. and he simply switched off. hewitched off the... like a pilot on a transatlantic flight o simply switched off all the buzzers, all the warnings. >> sorry, i agree with allf that but i don't... i'm not convinced that cameron's fate is going to be shakespeare. i think with a lot of other people in this they are in freefall. i ink cameron is badly damaged but i don't think he's in freefall on this. >> rose: alan? cameron. >> well, let me tell you about the warning that i... that we gave cameron's office because there's a quaint thing in britain about which is that we can't report trials that are coming up. we went to cameron and said "there's a trial coming up of a man accusedover murder, burying
an ax in his business partner's head. he'd just come out of prison in 2005 having spent seven years for setting up somebody with cocaine who was hired by coleson's "news of the rld" straight from jail to work for him as one of the investigators he was eloying. so that was something we couldn't report and it went all the way to cameron's chief of staff and cameron and his lackadaisical way said he didn't see anything significant in that. well, which employer would not want to know about somebody who's on... who's been in contact and employed somebody accused of an ax murder? it defies belief that cameron's officeust didn't think these kinds of things were significant. >> rose: well, how do you explain it it defies belief but how do you explain it? what is it about david cameron that wouldn't... >> he's a politician and a politician... >> well, he's a politician but, wait. i mean, the real question is was there something so powerful in the relationship between murdoch
and his ability to make and break politicians and cameron's need that he wanted somebody... i don't know. i don't know why he felt that he needed this particular man inside number 10. i'm not talking about anything that is specifically corrupt. but i'm saying that the british politicians felt they needed murdoch and his support and reciproally murdoch needed things from them. that never needed to be stated but everyone understood that that was hanging in the air and that's what this judicial inquiry has to get to the bottom of. >> i think murdoch's control of 37% of the britishress plus b sky b led to this conviction from tony blair to cameron that you had to have murdoch on your side. and, you know, when you're in britain you don't feel murdoch's running the show. i mean, you can read "the guardian," you can read t telegraph, you can read t daily expres you can read the f.t.
but i just wonder but blair, i'm sure, would have won the election in 1997 without murdoch. it was the end of the toris just as it was the end of new labor in 2010. murdoch had his finger in the wind and he went with these guys but i don't myself bieve e elections uld have come out any differently withou so i think there was a kind of mythology that hadbuilt up. we have to have murdoch with us. and now it's the opposite. we have to trash him. >> rose: john burns, how much has been has he been damaged, do you think? the prime minister. >> well, i think in the end in that american political cliche, it's the economy, stupid. i think cameron will survive or not on the basis of who whether his economic policies prove to have been correct. and it so happens to his misfortune that the economic indicators in britain just in these days when we've been riveted by the murdoch scandal have been quite discouraging.
there are serious risks of the british economy falling back into a double-dip recession and if that should happen the i think that his coalition would be imperiled and his chances of winning the next election would certainly be very much imperiled. and as harold wilson said, a week's long time in politics. i ink this story going to run and run. i think we have to believe rebekah brooks when she said last week in effect you ait seen nothi yet, there's worse to come. but i think the end... >> rose: what might rebec brooks admit? what might rebekah brooks have meant wh she said that? yoain't seen nothing yet, there's worse to come. >> she said she told the "news of the world" newsroom even as she bade them farewell and said i'm sure we've all seen performances like this, you know this hurts me more than it hurts you, she said, as she ended the careers of 280 journalists and sailed off merrily orrobably not merly on her way.
we don't know what she meant but she did say in that speech on saturday evening at the "news of the world" as i recall "there's worse to come, there are dark days ahead." now maybe she was referring to some of the things we've mean? the days since then having to do with bribery of the policend the invasion of the queen's security and privacy. but i suspect that there is worse than that. we've heard talk about burglaries and break-ins. alan has just mentione the association with known criminal elements and in one case a murderer. you begin to wonder where's the bottom of this pit? it may be some way deeper than we have seen yet. >> and part of the difficulty is there are three stories to monitor. there's the political story which has to do with can cameron but the commons and murdoch going before them. and there's a business story where we have to see how the
strategy plays out. i think the one that will probably bear the most fruit is the criminal story. there are now arrests, and these are arrests of people who have a lot to gain by giving up information. >> rose: including the aforementioned and coleson. >> absolutely. and if you track the arrests and you see... the wheels of justice grind slowly but what they grind t is information so that may yield us more knowledge about what was going on at the top levels than the other two at least in the immediate future. >> rose: we mentioned rebecca brooks a number of times, somebody close to rupert murdoch. i can't imagine him accepting her resignation but catherine do you think it will become so hot they'll have no choice as they did with the announcg the b sky b decision? >> i have to say at first when she didn't leave i wa completely incredulous then i asked myself the question what would happen if she d leave? who would be next? and that began to make me understand why perhaps her
resignation would not be accepted with aalacrity. but the other thing is when i was rearching this story, talk to people who had worked closely with her and with murdoch and they descred scenes of her for the business some of his family as a family member. this is not jt somebody who is an empyee. she... one person described a dinner party and itas just after he had a child with his new wife wendy and he was apparently saying rebekah, is wonderful, you must hurry up and do it. in fact, you must do it, we'll get you child care. we'll sort everything out. you know, this... as i say, it was not... it's very hard to understand what the relationship was, but it's a close relation so there is both the cynical reason for why he might want... not want to accept her
resignation and also an emotional tie there. >> which is lovely but the machiavellian management is at... this is someone who knows a lot about this scandal. would you rather have that person outside the walls of newspaper corps or inside forget what she may do down the road. as long as this is going on, it makes more sense for her to be as close as possible. >> and i think... >> rose: go ahead then come back to roger. go ahead. john? >> yeah. i think we can overwork some of these analogies i've been suggesting but i think there is a paradigm here in watergate and those of us who are old enough to remember know that people who are indispensable suddenly become indispensable, people who are life long loyalists suddenly defect and are on capitol hill testifying in effect for the prosecution. and it seems to me that there's a very, very grave possibility for rupe murdochthat sothing like that may happen as the pressures grow. ifebekah brooks if, in fact,
e had knowledge of these things-- and, of course, we can't be sur by any means s did-- but if she did know about them, if she did mislead parliament and the police about them then there is a possibility that atome int she may judge it or her lawyers may judge it to be more expedient for her to be outside the tent than in. >> rose: alan, on rebekah brooks. >> well, i think catherine's explanation may be right. because it's just extraordinary. i can't think of another occasion when you've got the prime minister, the leader of the opposition policeman at newspaper editorials and everyone finds it baffling that she's still there and i think the fire break theory is probab the right one that if she were to go then the only person you've got left is james murdoch. but i think john is also right, too,. they've rely thrown everybody else overboard now that the last of the lawyers, the two chief
lawyers, have gone. these are the people who were signing these agreements, they've all gone. so there's an awful lot of disaffecd people out there. >> rose: thank you very much, alan, it was great to have you back othe program. john burns, than you so much. catherine, thank you, also my thanks to alister campbell who had to leave us because of our limited sallite time. last point he from roger cohen. >> well, i think rebekah brooks probably has to go in the end. i don't see how that doesn't happen. but i do think this element of personal loyalty in murdoch is an interesting one. one of the few positive e-mails i got about my column was a from a guy called tom gross whose father john gross was the chief book critic of the "new york times" for a long time, was also the editor of the "times" literary supplement of the u.k. and the universally respected journalist who died last year to great euloes and many obituaries and tom said, look, my dad always said that murdoch
was the most supportive guy of the expansion of the "times" literary supplement in the u.k. at his death he was the proprietor who came through, remembered john in all kinds of ways. and that is a side of murdoch that i clearly on the plus side of the scale. >> rose:ast word for you. >> well, i think to roger's pot, there's no question that his goals... as journalists we appreciate the fact that he loves journalism. process matters. journalism i process and ultimately what i think we're seeing is that, you know, alas journalists went about a process. and they are the only people, really, to be ennobled in this entire scandal. they went about a process, they excelled. they were fair. they found the information. they didn't share the information until they had it nailed and then it's out there. it helps us understand the world. i don't think that we can commend murdoch's enterprises as much for their process as for the virtuousness of their goals and i think that's what we're seeing. >> rose: thank you. pleasure to have each of you. thank you very much.
this is a story that continues, obviously. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: paul farmer is here. he is a university professor at harvard which is the highest honor that harvard can give a professor. he's also a physian and he is an anthropologist. in 17 he co-founded partners in health, the organization provides medical care to some of the poorest countries in the world. in 2009, former president clinton named former special envofor iti. he's written a book called "haiti after the earthquake." i am pleased to have him on this program for the fir time and it is long overdue. welcome. >> thank you. thank you, arlie. >> rose: how many years have been going to haiti? >> 28. >>ose: why? >> you know, ient there as a just having graduated from college. before medical school. i knew i wanted to be a physician and i was very interested in... i wouldn't call it medical mission work but in
serving people who might otherwise not have had access to health care. i ended up in haiti on purpose. i studied the place as a college student and i'm really glad i did. >> rose: and what was the haiti that you know then pre-earthquake? >> rural haiti, the central plateau, people who make their living by farming the land. and i had a... i think the term would be good fortune to start my work in a very disrupted community. it had been displaced by a hydroelectric dam. so that was not the place in some senses to see a development project, now see one that was viewed pretty dimlyy the intended beneficiaries. it was just a good way to learn about the downsides of development work and totry and do a better job. >> rose: president clinton and others have expressed thisidea,
and a huge tragedy for a people who lost their lives from the earthquake, the devtation it di a country that somehow coming out of this might be some hope for haiti. do you accept that idea? do you believe that idea? is that idea turning to reality? >> i do acceptthe idea. i think... maybe because in my line of wo you need to have some goal and that's been true all along in providing health care services to people living in povey. so it maybe simply that i ne to believe that it's possible but i also believe that we cannot just build haiti back better which is, again, has been the goal of the haitian people all along and responding, as i said, to slavery in the 19th century. you can also build development back better. again, just tgo back to that experience as a young american 23 years old seeing this
hydroelectric dam, it wasn't done the right way. it displaced a lot of people and they were unhappy about it, they still are. and so i think the notion of building back better goes two ways... one, the infrastructure and the institutions of haiti but also the way we do business in humanitarian work and development work. >> rose: where were you when you first knew about the earthquake? >> i was in miami. we had just left haiti, my family was headedack to rwanda whe i've always been working and had no idea why i would be getting a call fm a friend in washington that afternoon... that evening and so i heard about it then, but it really took long time... chel mills called you. >> it was eryl mills and that was goo enough to... secretary clinton's chief of staff was good enough to let me know. she thought might be in haiti. she knew that i was down there
for the holidays. and i had no idea of the dimensions that the...over the quake but also of the impact on the city on the infrastructure itself. >> rose: so you turned around and went delight? >> i went to join presiden clinton at the united nations thnext morning and there was no getting in and out of the airport except through... commercial traffic was closed and so i came here to new york, the next day there was a session on haiti, there were some... a friend of ours who who'd we'd been working with, a haitian diplomat had come up for a meeting here, i came and met them and went back directly from new york. >> rose: you have said, i think, flight this book that everybody knows in haiti or anybody deeply involved with haiti knows where they were at 4:53 on monday, january 12. you remember exactly where you were. you were i haiti.
>> lot of people i've shared that experience. we say where were you that day? we were in haiti oroutse of haiti we can tell you exactly where were. >> rose: so when you flew back. >> i knew back and i remember it was a long... we were circling around the airport for a long time. again, there w... the airport waclosed for a long time to commercial traffic but i remember looking out the window and as it was turning dark and was with a medical team, surgeons, father/daughter team and some sore physicians including a haitian colleague and we were circling around and you justaw there was no electricity. you know, it was just blacked out down below except there was some small fires and... but that's what i remember is it looks so different just because there wasn't any lights whe
there usually are lights. and the power grid was, of course, taken out by the quake. >> rose: you also have said that you... first heard this, you know port-au-prince is one of the most fgileities everywhere. >> every year when there's a bad rainstorm there are casualties. so it's a very crowded... everybody knows w crowded it is. it's also on a steep mountainside that runs down from... right into the water. so it's fragile on the... in the st of seass and as erosion continues in haiti it becomes moreulnerable to ecological... to mudslides and floods. >> rose: what kind of natial guard nation w there between organizations? >> it was difficult. and some of that difficulty was borne of, again, telecommunications system was out, the power grid. so just the logistics of communicating was not easy. and then again there's been a
real proliferation in haiti of non-governmental organizations, which is well known now. and as the... ashere's been chronic weakness in the public sector, in the government, the breach has been filled, the void has been filled to some extent by n.g.o.s. and that's, again, i'm part of that movement, that world of n.g.o.s. but we really have to do more to strengthen the public health and public education systems. that's a lesson think prem learned. >> rose: other than poor, how would you characterize haiti? a developing country? a... what is it? >> i think, you know, that in a way listening to how haitians define themselves has been very structive to me. and, ain, i can't speak for all haitians, i've worked most in the rural areas. but every haitian can tell you about the history of haiti and its being born in response to colonialism, really. and that's pretty important in haiti. and i think it woul do us well
toisten very closely with the way haitians see their future. >> rose: and if we listen they wod say what >> they would say we need to strengthen haitian institutions, haitian blic health and haitian blic education and build haitian institutions d there's no replacement for that. so just so i don't sound like i'm being ideological, an example for me in medicine would be how can a group like ours-- partners in healt- or other groups, how can we strengthen public hospitals than try to build our own parlel system. >>are you satisfied with the response of this government and this president? >> the american government? >> rose: yes. >> i think there's been an enormous amount of effort put in to try and do things a little differently than has been done in the past. >> rose: looking for a better way? >> looking for a better y. if you lk back, haiti in the the 20th century, u.s. policy towards haiti in the 20th century there's... uight as
well start with the american occupation, 1915 to '34. after that there was a fair amount of support for wever showed up as in charge and that included a family dictatorship. after the fall of the family dictatorship, there was a lot of back-and-forth in u.s. policy and it was very disruptive and i think it's important try and do this better as a nation. i think there are a lot of people of good will who are trying to push forward that agenda of supporting haitian institutions and haitn-led development. >> rose: what was the mistake of the government? to not do what? if you follow... >> rose: political change from one regime to another? >> exactly. then also failing to support the haitian choices in leadership. that is the haitian voter.
i think that was a mistake. i think, you know, looking back over the last 25 years we've had a very... we've been all over the map. our country's foreign policy supporting... or failing to support often the haitian electorate and trying to undermine some of the governmentss. and this is very unpleasant to talk or write about but i do think it's important to have knowledge. in my line of work in public health we can't do our work if we're only tryingo advance our own agenda. we have to listen to what the haitian agenda might be. and, of course, the are a lot of agendas in haiti but in public health it shouldn't be that difficult. put it this this way. there have been two coups haiti just in the last 25 years and those have really... when there's a coupe it's very disruptive for a public policy, obviously.
that makes it hard to d if you go to a battle zone, u can industrial a field hospital and still transfuse blood and have operating rooms but you really can't pursue public health goals without some level of social stability and i think that's going to come more quickly from we let haitian people choose their own governments and decide what their own mission is going to be and support that. >> rose: so the immediate need is to deal with cholera. >> yes. cholera's a huge problem and it quires multiple interventions at once. clean filtered water in a household or village. but also building a system for identifying and taking care of people sick with cholera. but there are also other tools. vaccines, for example. we ought to bring those in to play and be much more ambitious about... >> rose: so why don't we? >> well, there's a lot of public health debates about which vaccines or whetr orot we
can get those vaccis. and so those debates, i think, slow things down a little bit. >> rose: what is it about what... is it that sort of made pa farmer become in his adult life a friend of those who did not have opportunity? >> well, one something that it... this work when done with any kip of commitment is successful. it's great to be able to... >> rose: change or save lives. >> change or save lives. work with colleagues in haiti and... it's a very gratifying kind of work, actually. and in some ways it's one of the most... the greatest place to be a doctor is in a place where you're starting... yr starting institutions to serve people who wouldn't otherwise be served.
so part of it is that it's very satisfying work. >> rose: so how much time are you on the road? >> i'm on the road a lot. i justame in from rwanda. rwanda has been another terrific place to work. you can get an enormous amount done there (the last six years my colleagues and i working, again, with the public authorities in rwanda, we've built three hospitals or we've built several centers, trained thousands of people and are serving literally a llion people aear. to m that's exciting work. >> rose: this is what bill clinton said. "haiti after the earthquake is a ipping recollection ofhe quake's ruin, chaos, a despair and the story of remarkable persistence, hope, and love in the aftermath. once you've seen haiti through paul farmer's eyes, you'll never see haitians or any of the world'poorest quite the same way again." thank you. >> thank you, charlie. thanks for having me. >> rose: thank you.